JUDGMENT :

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

(The case has been heard through Video Conference)

1. The Second Appeal arises from the Suit for ejectment of the Defendant from the Suit property, delivery of vacant possession after removing the superstructure and for recovery of arrears of rent. The Defendant is the Appellant.

2. The Suit property belongs to M/s. Anandammal Adheena Trust. The Appellant entered into a Lease Agreement with the erstwhile Trustees and in occupation of the Suit land. The lease between the Trustees and the Appellant was renewed on 3.7.1985 for a further period of 17 years. After giving credit to the advance of Rs. 300 received by the Trust under the earlier Lease Agreement, additional advance of Rs. 200 received under the new lease: On Termination of the lease, the Trust agreed to return Rs. 500. The total money received as advance, without interest. The Appellant was permitted to put up structure and carry on business, on condition he should remove the superstructure and hand over the vacant possession on expiry of the lease. The tent was fixed at Rs. 120 p.m., payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. In event of default in payment of rent, the Trust is entitled to have the Lease Agreement terminated and recover the possession.

3. On the death of Mr. Thirugnanasambandham, the Former President of the Trust, Mr. P. Selvanathan was appointed as President of the Trust, as per the scheme Decree passed in O.S. No. 1 of 1998 by the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry. On 9.1.2002 through a letter the Appellant was informed that he has defaulted in paying the rent from October 1997 and requested to pay the rent. The Appellant failed to pay the rent and continue to commit default. Thereafter, notice through lawyer was issued to deliver the possession of the Suit property free from superstructure by 3.7.2002. The Notice, dated 2.6.2002 was received by the Appellant on 8.6.2002 but the Appellant did not reply or complied with the demand. Hence, the Suit for ejectment and consequential relief.

4. The Appellant admitting the occupation of the Suit property as a leasee under the Trust, contested the Suit stating that his father Seetharama Iyer entered into the Lease Agreement with the Plaintiff Trust in the year 1973 and developed the site by constructing residence and a Hotel. Seetharama Iyer died intestate in the year 1985 leaving his wife and 5 sons. The Appellant is one among the five sons. He is continuing the business and in possession of the Suit property. When the dispute and quarrel arose among the Trustees of the Landlord Trust, the Appellant filed the Suit for permission to deposit rent for the said property, until the dispute among the Trustees get settled. The said Suit in O.S. No. 31/1986 was allowed and the Appellant was regularly paying the rent.

5. Later, the Trustees made public that their dispute is resolved and one of the Trustee Mr. Thirugnanasambandam is the person authorised to receive the rent for and on behalf of the Trust. Hence, the rent deposited was withdrawn by Thirugnanasambandam and he started collecting the rent from the Appellant. The said Thirugnanasmabandam died in the year 1997. The other Trustees Selvanathan, Adhi Narayanan, Annamalai and Vasudevan were receiving the rent during 1997 & 1998. Thereafter, a rival group consisting of Saminathan Pillai, Vaidyanathan and Kannabiran claiming as Trustees of the Landlord Trust started collecting rent from the Tenants between the end of 1998 and the middle of 1999. After the death of Saminathan Pillai again dispute arose between the trustees. The Tenants including the Appellant was not able to identify the true: representative of the trust and hence, he could not tender the rent. There is no cause of action for laying the Suit.

6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the signatory to Plaint has any locus standi to file this Suit?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction of the Defendant from the Su